Web-comments-1901-2000

#

SenderID

Ref.#

Comment Tool

Date

Comment

WC-1901

WID-2125

W-c6b8fdc6-32a3-4f7a-ab65-3a20bf33bcff

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 1:06:00 PM

What are you people thinking, old growth is more valuable on the stump than on a truck. Pleaselink the effects of sadditional old growth cut to forest fires, global warming and survival of old growth eco-systems. Also, I insist the the plan address the impact of add'l logging onupper Willamette spring Chinook. The notion that cuuting will augment county budgets is bogus at best as the housing slump has reduced the market for milled wood. So, masking the cutting in the cloak of increased/replaced county funds is false. PLEASE stop this plan.

My computer is old and your comment window should have a scroll bar for use after submitting a comment. It was never
apparent to me how much of my comment was being recorded and submitted. So I felt that I had to
make several points in order for my opposition to BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revision. I thank
you for allowing me to voice my opinion as a USA citizen and a resident of Oregon.
I also think that some folks may not be able to figure out how to
make comment, online. Glad you had the instuctions once a link was found on how to change the settings. I just think it should be more user friendly for a person
to find the inital link.

Add my name to those OPPOSED to logging old growth on BLM land in Oregon. Too little old growth is left overall. If logged over land were managed as well as public agencies claim, there would be timber for harvest on those lands today. Please spare us from "ecologists" who call old trees "overripe". How did the forests survive for so long without loggers to manage them? Also, comparing clear cutting to forest fires is more than a stretch. Do natural fires build roads, remove nutrients, replant with only a few commercial species, and apply chemical herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, etc.? Comments like those make BLM look silly to anyone who knows better. The connection between economic and ecological sustainability has been obscured by greed. Too much was cut too fast in past decades. Forest profiteers and their cronies got rich, workers lost their jobs, counties lost tax revenues, species were diminished--and now you want to do it some more? Learn to manage the land you have already logged. Leave the remaining old growth alone. There is more "use" for forests than just logs.

Where is the scientific evidence in support of discarding the environmental protections of the NW forest plan?
The draft EIS fails to address the WOPR's effects on forest fires, climate change, and the survival of old-growth ecosystems.
The cumulative effects of WOPR policies on upper Willamette spring chinook salmon MUST be considered -- as must the effects on all watersheds that are the source of our drinking water, and all salmon and trout bearing streams.

WC-1909

WID-2128

W-0ee43ac4-e606-4fc0-a0f0-f57c97744a7f

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 1:32:00 PM

If the current model of forest management equals sustainable forest, why then are the 75 percent of the forests previously clear-cut and replanted not currently providing sustainbable yeilds. I do not wish to allow the small percentage of remaining public old-growth forests not already clear-cut to fall just to find out. Leave the remaining old-growth alone. I do not wish to see any increase in logging from opening up currently protected streamside forests and old-growth reserves. We are going backwards rather than forward to sustainable forest management.

I support the NO ACTION alternative. This entire process is obviously industry driven. The science needs to be studied much more long term (for example, large wood in streams how much comes from adjacent land vs. landslides; seriously, even a layman like myself can see that this determination cannot be made by the time the recommendation is due, and the political climate needs to change from industry-driven to science-driven (which again, will take a lot more time) before any kind of action can be taken.
I do not understand why the timber was not harvested under the guidelines of the NW Forest Plan and now, industry is complaining that they have been so stymied and restricted and are suffering so greatly financially, that the BLM needs to drastically revise their logging practices and riparian area management. The public needs to be more educated on this missing piece of the puzzle.
This is not a solution, it is a catastrophe. Compromise should not come into play until more science is available (long term) and questions are answered about the administration (or lack thereof) of the NW Forest Plan.
Sincerely yours,
Dee White
3836 SE 49th Ave
Portland OR 97206

Although alternative #2 is somewhat conservative in the forest it makes available for growing and harvesting trees on a perpetual basis, it is the best of the three.
Follow the original O&C Act. It and its priorities are the law.

WC-1917

WID-2137

W-4b645800-c97d-4ad9-a97d-528daf616270

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 1:42:00 PM

I am opposed to any distubance of old growth stands by logging, thinning or road construction. I believe the small percent of old growth lands is already at a minimum to preserve diverse forest vegetation.

WC-1918

WID-2137

W-736a826a-1645-4732-a015-6d6c6abad74b

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 1:43:00 PM

I am opposed to the large scale creation of new roads in forrested areas.

WC-1919

WID-2140

W-6d47bc8e-3cae-4d33-bab7-98fa7fc453f3

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 1:46:00 PM

Even among bad ideas, this plan stands out as a particularly unfounded piece of nonsense. Given all we know about ecological systems, species preservation and the importance of species diversity to medical advances,how could this plan ever have made it out of the door to public review.
This is a complete sham and a significant embarassment to your organization. There is no legitimate justification for cutting old growth forests, this is merely a payback on campaign bribes from timber and logging interests. History is going to judge the pseudo science of this administrations appointees and emplyees so harshly that hopefully those responsible will be unemployable when this dark and corrupt period in our nations history has expired.
Please reject this plan for the unfounded pseudo science it is. I can't even believe that in the 21st century I am having to write these comments, your arrogance (it's too obvious for the resoning to be ignorance) is astounding even among this administrations failures.

We are mailing a hard copy of our comments with CD containing scientific publications and other documents.
Richard Nauman
National Center for Conservation Science and Policy
541-482-4459 x307
rich@nccsp.org

I found it impossible to figure out how to find my house location and make a comment. I will have to rely on the written comments that I have already submitted.

WC-1923

WID-2148

d491868d-2a29-41c2-a06a-2ae560c43a92

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:06:00 PM

Dear BLM:
I am writing to strongly oppose the BLM's WOPR. The plan's increases in clearcutting are outrageous and probably illegal considering the Endangered Species Act. It is absurd to propose such massive increases in clearcutting in Western Oregon. Oregonians have very little old-growth forest left. The United States has very little old-growth forest left. The WOPR should be scrapped altogether because it does not address the needs of old-growth species such as:
Red Tree Voles
Northern Spotted Owls
Marten
Fisher
river otter
salmon
steelhead
varied thrush
rough-skinned newt
Lewis' Woodpecker
Vaux Swift
and a myriad of fungi, insects, arthropods, and plants
There simply is no more old-growth left to cut. The BLM needs to perform its function as a land steward and act responsibly. The responsible action regarding western Oregon forests is to protect them, not cut them.
NO MORE CLEARCUTTING.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Christine Colasurdo

BLM should be conserving and protecting the forests as a resource for ALL citizens. They should encourage reforestation of the already-logged lands. They should be protecting water resources, and not succumb to the timber industry (a limited number of citizens). And BLM should be fostering programs that reduce the fuel loads in the forests. The program proposals dance around the essential issues of forest conservation, watershed preservation and wildlife habitat protection.

It seems that instead of gradually altering the current management stratagem there is a drive to open up huge amounts of acreage quickly to the handful of corporate interests that have the ability to reach this land.
With the increased demands for recreation in the more populated parts of the state it seems irresponsible to open up so much land to more destructive logging methods.
Implementation of this plan is irresponsible and difficult to alter in the near future if there is a public demand that it be altered.

WC-1929

WID-2144

W-b15d0e27-4786-4611-a247-72103fc083fd

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:17:00 PM

First of all why is the scientific evidence of the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan discarded? We currently have an excellent plan in protecting the overall ecology of the forest. Streams, fish and the habitat of all animals as well as the forest itself is now protected as intended in the current NW Forest Plan. Please do not make any changes to the present plan. We are proud of Sen. Wyden and our long-suffering BLM foot soldiers who are TRYING to do the RIGHT THING.
Robert as well as Doris Jones
931 Shaughnessy Lane, Eugene, OR 97401
jones@efn.org

WC-1930

WID-2155

W-92457737-7846-4422-a170-384de57b7001

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:19:00 PM

I disagree that the mandates of the O&C Act supercedes the mandate of the Forest Management Act or should be used as the appropropriate purpse and need statement.

WC-1931

WID-2135

W-dd74fbe4-be7a-4f66-b88b-dbd70c34d795

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:20:00 PM

The DEIS alternatives are flawed because they emphasize timber production at the expense of other public values, including fish, wildlife, watershed, water quality, soil and recreational values.
For the Medford district, in particular, where risk of uncharacteristic fire is relatively high in many areas, forest management should focus on thinning of small diameter trees and brush to reduce risk of uncharacteristic fire.
Off-road vehicle use should be restricted/prohibited in all areas, except where clearly marked trails for this use have been specifically designated. In all other areas, off-road vehicles should be prohibited. No off-road vehicle use should occur in areas where harm to fish, wildlife, soil, watershed, water quality, and aesthetic values is likely to occur. No off-road vehicle use should be allowed in the vicinity of urban or residential areas, and where conflicts with other recreational uses would be expected to occur.
I suuport the recommendations of the committee that recent researched and prepared comments on behalf of members of the Jackson County commissioners.

Please leave the BLM lands alone. Please do not allow this proposal to go through. Do not open up the BLM lands to allow the clear cutting of these super valuable old growth trees. These trees have infinitely more value alive than dead on George Bush's ranch. Do not allow the destruction of Oregon to happen. These trees are our future. They belong to our children. Trees are the reason we are alive. I love oxygen, and we need these trees to survive. Please don't allow the destruction of these trees. It will destory countless eco-systems, on a large and small scale.

WC-1934

WID-2153

None

Web Forum Exit

1/11/2008 2:24:00 PM

For some reason, I couldn't get to the maps area. Couldn't move the page down and some areas of the site were on top of each other. Wanted to make comment, but unable to zoom in on areas of interest. Too bad, this is a topic that I'm really concerned about.

WC-1935

WID-2155

W-0b54482a-c41b-4ade-a871-54505da0babf

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:26:00 PM

The only alternative I could support is the no action alternative. All other alternatives significantly shrink protection for old growth forests and buffers that serve to protect our streams, salmon and clean water. The BLM's preferred alternative proposes to reduce buffers by approximately half.
The preferred action alternative greatly accelerates logging in old growth forests and promotes clearcuts.

WC-1936

WID-2156

W-67943b20-abea-4214-a651-9ce0e5e6f29b

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:26:00 PM

I am saddened and concerned to think that the forests of Oregon are at risk of being logged at a rate quadruple of what it is now.
I believe it's short-sighted and foolish to think that logging at these rates - at within buffers much closer to our rivers and streams will NOT have a negative impact on the wildlife and land quality within these areas.
I urge you to please reconsider this plan and do not let it move forward as is. Forget keeping Portland weird, let's keep Oregon wild...

WC-1937

WID-2155

W-4524aa59-5c78-4b10-a13b-bf120b6b9edb

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:31:00 PM

I am opposed to the emphasis in the preferred alternative and other alternatives for motorized recreation. We need BLM lands for non-motorized recreation. I am opposed to the designation of any new emphasis areas for off road vehicles. There are 11 new areas for OHVs proposed on 100,000 acres and this is inappropriate. In this day and age, we need federal lands to be havens from vehicles and their impacts, not increase this use. Futhermore many of these areas are near streams and rivers and in sensitive habitat.

WC-1938

WID-2155

W-336ecc84-8075-4b59-8e33-ec96025ad058

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:35:00 PM

I believe we can protect mature and old growth forests and provide timber for communities and the country by doing second growth thinning while attempting to create older forest conditions. This will also help communities be safer from fires.
I am involved in the Alsea Stewardship group in Lincoln County Oregon. We are looking at just such a strategy to get economic and ecological benefits. This avoids the knock-down drag out battles of the past and achieves common ends of sustainability, restoration, and economic benefit. It can also help us store more carbon (in bigger trees)to assist in carbon sequestration.

WC-1939

WID-2143

W-6ccdb30e-9db9-49c6-838b-913f82c89d12

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:37:00 PM

I am a biologist with 25 years of experience working in Western Oregon. (I have worked for the Forest Service, BLM, Willamette Industries, and ODFW).
The following are items I consider essential to a good management plan: A) Tree stands which have not been logged for over 100 years must never be logged. They compose such a small area that they should be preserved in perpetuity. B) Stream buffers for first and second order streams need to be at least 100 feet wide. This controls erosion, limits landslides, and preserves fish. C) Areas harvested for timber must be done so at a PROFIT to the public, without hidden costs to the public such as road construction, culvert maintenance, cruising and scaling costs, etc. D) Weight must be given to sustainable commercial and recreational consumable harvest types, such as mushrooms harvest for food, and floral harvest of bear grass, salal, fern, etc. Economic assesment must be for the 40+ year period when these activities would be curtailed after logging. (Sure we need timber, just do not cut those few stands in sandy areas where Matsutake mushrooms grow, as an example). E) Many of our public forests are choked with reprod, which needs to be thinned. Most stands 15-40 years old are hurting for RESPONSIBLE, LOW IMPACT thinnning operations. (Limit road access, designing roads to reach many areas. Consider edge effects, and do NOT take the prime large trees in a thin). And do not give away trees with economic value, which is about all of them, regardless of dbh, considering the cost of press board.
F) Pursuent to preventing the future need for thinning, revise replanting regulations for Western Oregon and Washington slopes, especially those w/ north and south aspects. Temperate rainforests that currently require 6 trees planted for every one cut probably should only require 2 or three. This reduces the need and cost of thinning in 15 years. In Roseburg, on South facing slopes, you could plant 100 trees and they will all bake to death. Hot spots should require shade cards, not most seedlings.
G) Leave ALL snags. They have no commercial value, are rare due to previous logging practices, and are CRUCIAL to wildlife, especially birds. And, no, I do NOT buy the arguement that logging around snags is dangerous, as we have all worked with timber fallers who brag that they can drop a tree against it's lean, upill, in a gale, and land it on a dime you put down. H) Endangered species still need to be protected. We have more great horned and barred owls in our forests because these species like clearcuts and open stands. We have altered the environment in a way that endangers the Northern Spotted owl much more subtly then cutting down a nest tree. And, in protecting Spotted owls, we found we inadvertently preserved a host of threatened and endangered animals, such as black footed ferrests, wolverines, and rare plants, as well as preserving some watersheds.

WC-1940

WID-2155

W-f90a77d7-cf24-4f29-b2e7-04e2c8feffeb

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:38:00 PM

I believe that BLM's forests should be managed to support and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, not further stress it.
All alternatives except the no action alternative will result in more harm to old growth species, will harm ecosystem resiliency, and harm salmon habitat. We can't afford more listings, more losses to sensitive species. I don't believe these changes are appropriate nor do they reflect my values and those of most other citizens.

WC-1941

WID-2157

W-906c3967-2d37-41c3-a1ac-7962c73298cb

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:40:00 PM

I would like to see more recreational opportunities for equestrians. equestrian camps and recreational non-motorized trails.
Thank you
Joe J. Reeves
jcreeves5@verizon.net

I am a commercial salmon troller. Unfortunately, I cannot support any of the alternatives besides the no action, because I believe reducing the riparian areas at all to be too risky. I am very skeptical of claims that none of the alternatives would adversely affect fish habitat and production. I spend quite of bit of time in the woods as well at sea, and have seen many places in the Coastal range including BLM land where a better riparian buffer would increase the speed and chances of large wood delivery to streams and creeks, as well as increasing shade and decreasing temperatures. I do not believe that lessening protections for even intermittent, non-fish bearing streams is at all appropriate, considering the delicate status of fish stocks in the region. Just because BLM lands are surrounded by private landowners in some cases is no reason to not bother with maximum protections. As stewards of public lands, the BLM should hold itself to a higher standard. I am disturbed that the BLM feels that since the effects of climate change on the forest and salmonids is difficult to predict, we might as well just not even bother trying. The more responsible course would be to redouble efforts to protect the riparian areas by managing for mature forests and maximum shade.
Again, I am saddened by the alternatives because I would gladly support increased logging, especially thinning, if it were done without reducing riparian buffer zones and areas. There are even some things to like in Alternative 2 for fish, and I do not understand why we cant have those features in a plan that is better overall. Reducing the riparian areas by 75 percent, however, is like the proverbial "poison pill." Due mainly to the terrible riparian buffer reductions, I cannot support this plan.
Sincerely, Paavo Carroll, F/V Titan

WC-1944

WID-2163

W-4598c8ba-0eca-411f-843d-764ee906f1e0

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:45:00 PM

This program is grievously offensive to the free people of the Northwest United States. We will not stand by as you prepare to destroy the last remaining hope for life on planet earth. We are now aware that this federal administration is an outlaw administration, and the good people of the United States and their hopes for a peaceful future in contempt. The WOPR facilitates this destructive behavior. The people know in their hearts this is wrong.
This program:
is short-sighted;
hostile towards wilderness;
poorly thought out;
destructive to our growth as a free, independent people;
destructive to our economy;
destructive to our resource base;
destructive to wildlife habitat;
makes money for a few, while the rest lose there connection to the force that sustains life.
Again, this WOPR WILL NOT PASS. IT STOPS NOW. The federal governments treacherous reign over the last remaining vestiges of the power of life are at an end.

WC-1945

WID-2171

W-73f8c8c0-2ca9-4e56-b640-a39088286df2

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:50:00 PM

In regards to forestry practices it is lamentable that well trained foresters can't harvest what ever trees deemed necessary for healthy growth and to keep the forests safe from fire.

WC-1946

WID-2173

W-ce138544-abcb-4c4f-9879-7ce5a41d2944

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:52:00 PM

The "no action" alternative fails to provide protective management of public land forests and waters. However, it is far preferable to the alternatives that would ignore the importance of river and stream protection and/or permit the logging of irreplaceable old growth.

WC-1947

WID-2166

W-306360ec-e34e-4879-8995-c553b855bb52

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:52:00 PM

I believe the assessment should emphasize the importance of planning forest management within a larger whole. More specifically, I hope WOPR will be planned within the context of 1) neighboring lands and waters and 2) log and lumber markets.
For example, in 1 above, can WOPR be planned within the context of watersheds? Watershed councils demonstrate a way of integrating planning across ownerships along fish-bearing streams. Local government officials cite watershed councils as a model for integrative planning for other resources e.g. energy. I suspect it can apply when developing large-scale fire prevention strategies. To what extent can the watershed council model be used effectively to plan forest management across ownerships?
Secondly, to what degree can an alternative plan be assessed relative to current and projected markets for forest products? Log prices are down. Salvaging wind throw in northwest counties will likely add more timber to the market. To what extent will adding more timber from public lands negatively influence prices for small woodland owners? To what extent, then, will income from depressed markets actually enhance county income?
In short, I hope consideration of WOPR alternatives will include a deliberate look at the larger whole...the land, streams, and markets.
Thanks for listening.

WC-1948

WID-2130

W-527edd35-f75a-43a7-8057-4e244391f81f

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 2:58:00 PM

It is a sobering task when it comes to managing anything in light of the complexity of this issue, as I read. Striking a balance between enviromental economies affected by management or any implementation that alters land use, always has its positives and its negatives.
I find it difficult for a layman to choose between alternatives provided here as one looks at the "pies". Coming from Florida (a native of 47 yrs.) in 1998 to live and find meaningful work in this beautiful state of Oregon, it is easy to say no to development. I have also learned how many communities have been dealt a severe blow to their livelihood when this has been the case. My work is agriculture in the Willamette Valley. I know what it means to lose productive land to issues surrounding outside interests. And yet, in this day of so many interests and needs for resources, striking a balance gets more complicated.
There is a need to manage our resources (land, water and air) with the latest technology. We have those tools now that give us a better understanding as to the ramifications of our choices. Developing better approaches as we implement new strategies is imperative. So to build into any choice we make, the ease of adapting from the present practice to a choice that best fits the needs of the future, should be built into laws governing an alternative. The system we now have often requires so much time spent in litigation to potentially change a ruling to a "best management practice". It is usually some entity trying to protect itself from losing revenue. Understood. How do we build into a system where less is lost and more is gained?
How do we honestly measure the value in our choices before so much is lost?
If we manage something that is inclusive of most/all of the elements involved, meaning ALL species, not just the human element, that is the best we can do. Let us not forget to mention what drives all of this, the rising human population and the demand on resources. If we continually manage something according to need and neglect the waste involved we're doomed as an earth inhabitant.
I guess I leave it to the experts that generate the data from which we all make the best decision we can. I hope the future generations of caretakers will have something as inspiring to work with.

WC-1949

WID-2170

W-189c86f0-3ea2-4314-a513-565f9c76a185

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:00:00 PM

The BLM should log no more old growth and that should extend to small parcels. Thinning of forests should begin now.
Charles Turner

I have only just become aware of the proposed cutting on hundreds of thousand of acres previously uncut old forests. Our forests are disappearing from natural causes because of poor management, and experimental procedures.Our wild live is at risk because of having their habitats destroyed.Please, please, think of the consequences of the actions you are about to impliment. Minimize this proposed cutting drastically.Please save our forests.Preserve our old and even new growth forest. I have been an Oregonian all my life, and have never seen the forest ravaged like I have recently, Please Stop now before there is no turning back. PLease.

I strongly oppose the logging of old growth forests, especially on public lands. I realize there are individuals and groups who would support cutting down every ancient tree if it would benefit them economically. But most people would feel that at least some of these magnificent, irreplaceable trees, and the forests where they exist, should be preserved. Again, opinions would vary as to how much old growth should be saved. The truth is that only a small portion of what once existed is left! I feel it should be preserved, and I believe that most people would agree. It is alarming how much the earth is being damaged by human activities. At some point we need say it is time to try to reverse this situation. Forests, especially old growth, provide mankind with a multitude of benefits other than lumber. I expect those benefits to dramatically increase in value. It would be foolish and disgraceful to disregard this.
I appreciate this opportunity to offer my opinion. Jerry Wood.

We urge the BLM to discard the new Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), which would drastically increase logging on Public Lands administered by the BLM. We feel that increased logging on these lands would be detremental to our environment, would contribute to increased global warming, would degrade the forests and rivers of Western Oregon and would destroy recreational and scenic beauty on a huge scale.
We have lived in both rural and urban areas of Lane and Benton Counties, and we love our Western Oregon forests. They are a haven for rare and some endangered species and are a resource for people seeking mental and physical rejuvination and peace. Please do not cut down these forests for the profit of a few wealthy people.
We believe that the majority of people in Oregon and the rest of the United States want more protection and conservation of the Western Oregon forests, not less. Thank you for considering our letter. Sincerely, Ernest and Jane Rimerman

WC-1957

WID-2187

e4fec81c-d799-42cc-be41-a92ba6e12640

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:30:00 PM

Dear BLM,
Saving trees is more important than timber reciepts. If we run out of money, we need to find a way to raise more, but if we run out of forests and old growth we would have to wait a long time (if ever) for them to grow back. Please reconsider the WOPR! Thanx, Peter Barron

personally the fact that we are still cutting down any old growth trees/forests is beyond my ability to comprehend!!! the people determining the fate of our forests obviously have no concern for our future on this planet when there is accurate and definative scientific evidence that our biosphere is already being jeopordized by past logging....please consider one more persons heartfelt plea for a moritorium on logging rather than allowing further degradation of our forests!! thank you for asking for public comment as this is what a democracy is all about. onCe again STOP LOGGING...SINCERELY, Stephanie Dryden

WC-1961

WID-2174

W-972f5532-4d97-4275-86f5-b942c6636164

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:36:00 PM

I support a No Action option in the Western Oregon Plan Revision and strongly oppose options two and three. The impact on waterways and complex forest are much to great for the short term financial benefit. The plan options demonstrates good stewardship has become ransom for County funding. I am suspicious of the events leading to the revision's "need" determination. I encourage more transparency of the degree of influence those who will benefit financially have on law makers during the consideration of Secure Rural Schools funding. I also question if the net revenue from the plans options contained projections of potential administrative and litigation cost.

WC-1962

WID-2107

W-74066639-6586-46f5-9ff3-4be2be7d22df

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:44:00 PM

Dear BLM,
As a former BLM employee (during the Reagan administration), I understand the political pressure brought to bear on federal employees. But to produce this draft EIS as a viable and preferred alternative, even with that coercion, is unconscionable. I believe all alternatives should be scrapped and a whole new analysis should take place to create a plan using the latest science, not politicized science. I urge you to find common ground similar to what has occurred in the Siuslaw National Forest
To triple planned clearcut logging, with all we know about the effects of clearcut logging in this day and age, is dishonest. By logging any of the few remaining groves of old growth we destroy our past and future. With global warming, the destruction and degradation of species, streams and wildlife habitat and view corridors, we must be good stewards of our last precious wild lands. This alternative uses our public land to support the timber industry at the expense of everything else, a throwback to the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
I lived in rural Oregon for 30 years and I understand the difficulties facing small communities with the lessening timber production and O&C monies. But this alternative only offers these communities false hope and a short-term fix. Logging at this rate is unsustainable, as we all know.
I know a lot of work was done to draft this EIS, but I imagine that if you adopt this alternative, it will be challenged in court (and rightly so, I must say). So, please advise the higher ups that the public will not stand for this impractical, timber-biased management of our forests.
Kind Regards,
Leslie Rose

WC-1963

WID-2172

W-31a66f2c-3ebf-4c85-9541-debd9838e515

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:45:00 PM

Dear BLM,
I urge you to not implement any of the proposed WOPR alternatives. The existing protections of the Northwest Forest Plan are important for preserving the wild old growth forests of Oregon for both people and the native flora and fauna. Old growth forests and relatively clean running streams are essential features of the Pacific Northwest landscape, and would be horrible to damage them further in a bid to turn a short-term profit by mining the large trees from these national reserves.
As the majority of ancient forests have been clearcut on both private and public land in Oregon, the remaining reserves are essential for maintaing pristine habitat for disturbance-sensitive animals like the northern spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and the marbled murrelet. I don't trust that the ecologists have accurately quantified the amount of pristine habitat we need to maintain healthy ecosystems. Once the ancient forests are logged, they are gone and managers won't be able to reverse the process if it turns out these species need more intact habitat than the current consensus. I think the public forests should be managed to support thriving populations of the native species, not just minimal numbers that barely support survival.
The wild forests of western Oregon on BLM land are important for many people of our state as well. Many of us value being able to interact with the natural landscape near where we live. The forests of Oregon provide a draw for tourists from elsewhere, and preserving intact old-growth helps our state economy. Maintaining wide stream-side buffers aids the health of salmon, which are an important regional symbol. Water quality is also important for the many people who live in our area.
I see a need for continued timber harvest in western Oregon, and I feel it's appropriate for some of this to occur on our public lands. Rather than mining out large trees in an unsustainable manner, I think the BLM lands should be harvested to promote healthy trees on previously clearcut areas. The plantation trees are commercially viable, and this process does not require building new roads, or using horribly inefficient helicopter methods.
Please manage our public BLM forest lands to preserve the important old growth assests.
Sincerely,
Reed Burgette

The WOPR violates a key O&C ACT purpose to contribute to the economic stability of local economies and industry. With a lack of any alternative that would increase timber production when demand and prices were high and reduce timber production when prices were low, the present proposals would dump cheap timber into an already saturated market, continuing the downward pressure of timber prices and resulting in associated reduction in profitability, employment, and overall economic instability of the local economies of the Northwest. These proposals violate the Act´s direction to regulate the annual supply of federal timber production based on market conditions and timber prices. BLM should continue to work on timber sales at a steady pace, but should only offer those sales at times there is sufficient demand to both maximize profits for the Counties and the Federal Treasury AND not destabilize the local wood products industry and local economies by dumping low-cost timber on an already saturated market. The current proposals advocate massively increasing annual timber production without any provision to regulate such offerings based on timber prices or to protect local economic conditions.

WC-1969

WID-2197

W-16fd84aa-5bd8-481c-b218-922c43946d4f

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:54:00 PM

Count my wife and I as AGAINST this WOPR plan. We always will oppose expedient clear-cutting and overharvesting (particularly reducing riparian zones) for "short term" financial gains. There are better ways to help fund schools than by destroying the world we depend on to live. Anyone there ever heard of global warming? Sounds snotty, but with short-sighted plans like this, we have to ask. Cutting down old growth trees is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
Please do the right thing and can the WOPR.
Robert & Jamie Hermann

WC-1970

WID-2198

W-b0a371fe-53ab-46c2-bbb5-2a7db30c14a8

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:56:00 PM

I support the BLM's attempt to implement a plan that is well rounded and includes an increase in the harvesting of timber. I feel this should include clearcutting and thinning at the BLM's discretion. The O @ C lands are not a nature preserve and should be used for multiple uses, which definitely include timber harvesting.

WC-1971

WID-2191

W-0b334306-218a-4562-840d-17b87e140d3b

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:56:00 PM

I have spent a career in salmon and steelhead research, management, and habitat restoration involving many parts of Oregon, and I´ve spent half a lifetime hiking, mountain climbing, fishing (rivers, lakes, bays, and ocean), deer and elk hunting, river running, mushroom hunting, and firewood cutting in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. I am surprised and saddened by the alternatives that the BLM has proposed in this DEIS for the WOPR. The claims of low impact and even benefits to forest ecosystems and watersheds are just not based on the weight of scientific evidence. The BLM could only arrive at such an assessment by selectively focusing on research and other information (and/or misinterpretations of the research and other information) that is easily refuted. I am especially concerned with the BLM´s defense of drastically reducing riparian buffer strips on streams. The so-called "No Action" option involves a lot of credible actions to protect and restore forest ecosystems, watersheds, fish and wildlife populations, future timber harvest, and recreation. While not perfect, and certainly in need of monitoring and adaptive responses to improve forest management, all of the alternatives proposed in this forest plan are worse, especially alternatives 3 and 2. Please pay close attention to the credible science that is available and develop better alternatives than what is shown in this WOPR.
For the sake of future generations of forest and watershed users, do not be pushed into bad decisions by those pursuing short-term (less than 50 year) gains from these lands. Good alternatives will contribute to centuries of sustainable ecosystems and the benefits they will provide to future generations of people on this earth.

WC-1972

WID-2193

W-b777d1db-724f-4f16-9fc6-f8346f7d31c9

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:57:00 PM

I have been hiking and horse back riding for over 20 years now in the West Evans Creek Watershed. I have witnissed the degadation of the watershed over the past 10 years due to ATV riding and it really upsets me that this has been allowed. There are thousands of trails that are eroding sand into the streams. I have researched the watershed quite a bit now and it is apparent that the BLM is in violation of several laws including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. After talking to ODFW Biologists and researching there website I have found some striking facts. West Evans is one of the few Coho (an Endangered Species) producing streams in the middle Rogue. According to there fish biologists and snorkel data, it was one of the highest producing coho streams in 1999. There are very few coho producing streams in the Middle Rogue, so why would you pick this watershed for an ATV emphasis area? Secondly, where is the existing NEPA for allowing ATV riding here for the past 10 years?

WC-1973

WID-2200

W-41dd132f-dc71-42c2-941d-b193639ee21a

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 3:59:00 PM

The proposal to designate OHV Management areas on O&C timberlands does not analyze or disclose the effects of such designation on the long-term timber production capability of those lands or the effect on meeting the intent of the O&C Act's timber production focus.

The WOPR fails to analyze NEPA Cumulative Effects to water quality and quantity related to OHV use.

WC-1976

WID-1946

W-ad7cd284-038e-4fd2-af2d-db2a11673919

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:03:00 PM

Having read the DEIS, I would like to state my strong preference for the "no action" alternative. I find the language of the action alternatives in some ways too technical and, of greater concern,too ambiguous and therefore subject to arbitrary interpretation. To some extent, my problem with the action alternatives may be due to my not having any forestry expertise. Nonetheless, the risk to old growth and adjacent habitats that I see embodied in the action alternatives is too great for me to support any of them.

WC-1977

WID-2207

W-492161be-4988-4572-b173-dc1f39b74c41

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:03:00 PM

I am in support of the BLM's plan that increases timber harvesting

WC-1978

WID-2206

W-5901fbdf-6091-42a9-ab49-8a03689ede96

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:04:00 PM

I am opposed to your plan for cutting currently protected old growth forest reserves and clearcutting along streamsides.
I am opposed to using BLM forests for timber production at the expense of old growth, clean water, healthy fish and other wildlife, and recreation.

WC-1979

WID-2200

W-42f4fb64-062c-42c3-acaf-866537449756

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:05:00 PM

The WOPR fails to analyze or disclose the interrelated cumulative effects of proposed OHV management expansion and increased timber harvest. Cumulative effects of these and other interrelated conditions must be analyzed across all lands regardless of ownership, and must look at the past, present, and foreseeable future.

I support the BLM's plan to increase timber harvesting on its timbergrounds.

WC-1982

WID-2200

W-832d65f8-f4e7-460a-b36a-6b97675ad388

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:10:00 PM

The Plan fails to disclose why the scientific findings in earlier documents (SAT report, NWFP, etc) are no longer valid.

WC-1983

WID-2200

W-220da454-110f-4d44-912e-3ef8cf534e21

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:14:00 PM

The analysis of the Peak Flow issue focuses on vegetative cover only, but fails to quantify cumulative impacts from increased drainage density from roads, runoff due to soil compaction, or the effects of the proposed increases in OHV areas.

WC-1984

WID-1810

39463d6f-89b9-4b11-be98-bb8e641660e0

File Upload

1/11/2008 4:14:00 PM

Hello, This document is the attachment for the comments submitted on 1-11 by Sharon Duggan on behalf of PEER.

If only those who began cutting trees had planted in their wake, we wouldn't be in this position: namely, nearly all the forest is gone.
If you pretned it's next year and you've already cut everything, you would have to develop/rely on alternatives, of which there are plenty. Let's do that now so that we can have our children and their children actually know/experience in the flesh (as opposed to photographs, media, etc.) the majesty of old growth trees towering overhead.

WC-1986

WID-2210

W-aa9f2adb-6e0a-456a-9657-c4a6d3f0d6b9

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:18:00 PM

If only those who began cutting trees had planted in their wake, we wouldn't be in this position: namely, nearly all the forest is gone.
If you pretned it's next year and you've already cut everything, you would have to develop/rely on alternatives, of which there are plenty. Let's do that now so that we can have our children and their children actually know/experience in the flesh (as opposed to photographs, media, etc.) the majesty of old growth trees towering overhead.

WC-1987

WID-2200

W-28a45a72-0ae3-47e4-a23e-f0363dce4cc4

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:19:00 PM

The alternatives fail to analyze or disclose the potential impacts of the gradual loss of groundwater storage capacity within the colluvial deposits of dry draws and ephemeral streams that would result from declining large wood debris input over time (these streams have no large wood protection under the action alternatives; dry draws have none under the no action alternative, which is also deficient in this respect). Such streams are critically important for the storage of groundwater and slow release of summer flow to downstream intermittent and perennial streams, especially in the xeric conditions of SW Oregon.

WC-1988

WID-2199

W-af121cdd-5455-4c9a-bf05-06037db9347a

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:32:00 PM

I am not convinced that your emphasis on the O&C Act to promote logging is legal or correct. I think that the guidelines for managing all federal lands should be consistent; emphasis on logging the O&C trees to raise money is short sighted; we need to respect the forest and preserve what is unique about it. The O&C lands are unique because they have the last remnants of an ancient forest.

WC-1989

WID-2199

W-746544e8-8d44-442c-bc54-56371e9000e7

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:42:00 PM

The way you number your alternatives makes it hard to select or envision the no action alternative. There is not an "action" alternative available that values areas of the forest for their uniqueness or spirituality, or their importance to the genetic diversity of the forest. Why not. Wouldn't that be the correct way to manage a forest, wouldn't that be an action?

WC-1990

WID-2216

W-b7d0b6b4-8a8a-4322-ae4c-0eb79bbb2525

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:45:00 PM

I wish to support alternative 3 of the wopr plans. Your "preferred" option 2 caters too much to industry, and not enough to a healthy environment in the long run. I support alternative 3.

WC-1991

WID-2142

W-fa175e93-1905-431e-8f9a-db0c9c72a372

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:46:00 PM

Please discontinue cutting All old growth trees in the United States! The public enjoys this natural resource and if you cut them we will probably never see them again!

WC-1992

WID-2214

W-8ceed9b2-6ad8-46e4-b63b-819273b0138d

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:48:00 PM

While the BLM plan addresses fire concerns about our nearby and other Oregon forests, I do not believe this plan is nearly as comprehensive or protective of old growth and our forests as is the Pacific Northwest Forest plan that was hammered out over ten years.
The biggest concern I have, other than removing too many trees and not protecting old growth or fish and other species, is protection of waterways by not providing adequate watershed a specific distance from those waterways. The proposal seems to grant logging much closer to the waterways than currently exists.
Anyone who has been in a logging area has seen the destruction from debris or vehicles or dragged logs tearing up the forest floor and streams.
Clean water is critical not only for the forests, but for all the species that use the water, including eventually humans. The buffer zone has been set too close to the water to provide adequate protection.

WC-1993

WID-2222

W-c9fc9bce-4e90-4649-81a7-b23b2bd170d4

Draft EIS

1/11/2008 4:48:00 PM

I agree with BLM to open up logging of the forest that would help the economy in this community that is desparate for the resources.

Why should all but the no action alternative have such a big impact on stream buffers? The corridors along streams provide shelter for wildlife and plant diversity. Because of wind exposure and blowdown, these drastic reductions in stream side buffers will have a detrimental effect to wildlife and reparian areas, why should that be acceptable in any alternative.

Forests are critical to wildlife, streams, salmon, and should be left for us to continue to enjoy. We love to camp, hike, fish, and play all over the western coastal forests and hope you leave the old growth to stand for my kids' grandkids.
Keep Oregon wild and scenic!
Thank you, Kim